Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Kafeero Nobert v Agri Evolve Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 29 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 402 (20 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to file an amended memorandum of appeal because the notice of motion was served outside the 21-day limit and no extension of time was sought.
Nakibuule v Nsereko & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1107 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 286 (11 July 2024)
The High Court set aside a dismissal and reinstated a commercial suit after finding sufficient cause for earlier non-compliance with court directions.
Nyanzi v Nassolo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 128 (2 May 2023)
The High Court upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed a miscellaneous application for late service and missing mandatory court endorsements under Order 5.
Wandera and Another v Mawazi Wandera and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2017) [2021] UGHCCD 194 (2 August 2021)
The appeal was found incompetent because the Appellants did not follow the statutory procedure under Order 26 Rule 2(2) CPR, which required them to apply to set aside the dismissal for non-payment of security for costs, rather than appeal directly. The trial magistrate lawfully exercised her discretion in dismissing the suit after the Appellants failed to pay the ordered security for costs for nearly eight months and did not contest the order by review or appeal. The dismissal was automatic and in accordance with the law, and the appeal was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Source excerpt
Mulaggussi v Katabalo (Misc. Appeal No.006 of 2016) [2018] UGHCLD 36 (19 April 2018)
The High Court dismissed a preliminary objection and held that service of summons outside the prescribed time, without an extension, made the application incompetent.
Mubarakali v Najam-Ud-Din and Sons (Civil Suit 1259 of 1953) [1954] EACA 56 (1 January 1954)
The court held that the order requiring the plaintiff to provide further and better particulars within 15 days was clear and precise as a time order. No particulars were filed within the stipulated period, and the subsequent delivery was out of time. Applying established English authorities, the court found that such orders operate automatically upon non-compliance, resulting in the dismissal of the suit without further judicial intervention. The court distinguished between cases of illusory compliance, which may require further adjudication, and absolute failure, which triggers automatic dis…
Source excerpt
